• Walmart chief people officer Donna Morris oversees more than 2 million workers globally.
• She shared three green flags that make her lean in during a job interview.
• Morris said she likes to see a track record of grit in a candidate.

Donna Morris oversees over 2 million employees, so she knows a strong candidate when she sees one.

Walmart's chief people officer identified three green flags that make her lean in during a job interview — regardless of the role they're applying for. First, she told Business Insider that she looks for a genuine alignment with the company's purpose and values.

Second, she wants to see an ability to take on multiple responsibilities and make things work.

"They demonstrate a track record of grit," Morris said, defining those individuals as people who have overcome adversity.

In an ideal world, she said that means they've worked on the frontline, since so many of Walmart employees have customer-facing roles. She said the company looks for candidates with a focus on service.

Morris, who started working at 13 at a dry cleaner's and then worked at a drugstore for eight years, said that if a candidate has never experienced what it's like to be a frontline hourly worker, it may be challenging for them to lead. Morris said those jobs gave her purpose, and she found it hard to resign.

Now, when she interviews candidates, Morris said her go-to question is "If I was to ask people who've worked for you before, what will they tell me?" She said the open-ended question generates a genuine response and helps her gauge whether the person is focused on servant leadership, which is a "big green flag."

Asking this question allows her to hear more about a candidate's first job or a work experience. She said that while graduating from an Ivy League school is valuable, she's more focused on hearing about what they've learned from work experience.

"What was the grit they had to persevere through?" Morris asked.

The chief people officer, who worked at Adobe for more than 17 years before joining Walmart, said that her third green flag is candidates who are passionate about making a difference.

"That, to us, would be really, really key," Morris said.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Bridget Griswold, the 25-year-old CEO of Lean In, who lives in San Francisco. It's been edited for length and clarity.

I fell in love with technology at Brown University, where I studied computer science and business. I worked with two female professors to build a robot. I interned at a semiconductor manufacturing company and also loved design and art.

Product management felt like a really wonderful combination of all those interests, and that was my role at Meta a year after graduating from college. My team and I redesigned the Instagram search grid, so now when you search for large Instagram accounts, you're routed to the search results page rather than directly to those accounts. I'm very proud of that.

While at Meta, an incredible female mentor connected me to Sheryl Sandberg. Meeting her felt so surreal and is what led me to start my role as CEO at Lean In in March. It feels like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do mission-driven work.

I was a swimmer as a kid, and as my swim coach used to say: "You get out of swimming what you put into it." I think that applies to many things in life: The more you put in, the more you get out.

Here's a day in my life.

I wake up to my needy, angelic cat around 7:30 a.m.

The second I wake up, I pet my crying and whining cat. She's an angel but very needy.

I'm not a breakfast person, but I need coffee immediately. I have many cups of coffee throughout the day. One of the first things I do is make some at home.

I always tidy up my apartment while brushing my teeth

The most productive two minutes of my day are when I brush my teeth. I clean and tidy my apartment at the same time.

I'm probably not super focused on brushing my teeth, which is maybe a problem, but I'm also making my bed, emptying the dishwasher, feeding my cat, or starting the coffee maker.

I always move really quickly; I don't like to sit still. Brushing my teeth and standing still would make me antsy, so I like to get something else done at the same time.

I'm still adjusting to West Coast hours

I moved from New York City to San Francisco in August.

In New York, I went to Solidcore classes before work every day. Working on the West Coast, the workday starts earlier than on the East Coast, so I'm still learning whether I like to work out in the morning or after work.

When I take the bus to the office three days a week, I often use that time to catch up on personal housekeeping tasks like scheduling appointments or texting back my friends who live on the East Coast.

I come to the office around 8 a.m. or 8:30 a.m.

A majority of my in-person time is spent in meetings. As CEO, I enjoy being involved in all aspects of the team.

I'll meet with our content and research team — we spend a lot of time digging into data, such as some really exciting new research on trad wives in the manosphere. I also often meet with our product and tech team, as well as many of our partners, to help grow our programs.

We have lunch in the office — my favorite is a salad-plus-smoothie combo — and it's a really wonderful time to connect with the team.

I also love connecting with our Lean In community. One thing we're focused on is closing early gender gaps in AI usage. Our flagship program, Circles, consists of groups of 8 to 12 women who meet regularly to support each other in their careers — we have over 170,000 members. It's a perfect forum to hold each other accountable for upskilling in AI.

Every week, I send AI tips to our network leaders. A recent one encouraged the use of AI notetakers, as women are more likely to take notes during meetings and miss out on participating.

Lean In is in over 180 countries, and it's really heartwarming to see that our commitment to our mission has a positive impact on women's careers. Getting to speak with them is really energizing and rewarding.

I rehearse for meetings by talking to myself on walks

Another habit of mine I've been told is weird is how I prepare for big meetings.

If I have a presentation or interview coming up, I'll set up a Zoom and practice speaking to myself. Talking for a long time is sort of an unnatural act, and the first time you do it is probably not going to be your best.

Sometimes, I'll even go on a walk and wear headphones, pretending like I'm in a meeting or on a phone call, but I'm actually talking to myself and practicing.

When there's a bug, I usually fix the code myself

Because of my background in computer science, I spend a lot of my time finding bugs or things I believe we should change on our platform. I'll code and fix those on my own. Thankfully, with AI, it's so much faster to code now than it was a few years ago.

Our team is busy, and my goal is to enable everyone to have as much impact and move as quickly as possible. If I can help unblock the tech team or resolve an issue rather than add it to their plate, I'm always more than happy to do so.

I leave work around 6 p.m.

I continue to work until I go to bed pretty much every night.

It's nice to have that time at home, when I'm not running around between meetings, to focus, give feedback on documents the team has sent, write, respond to emails, and brainstorm my own ideas.

I take breaks to tidy up my apartment and make dinner. Living in New York got me out of the habit of cooking, so I'm taking the initiative to cook more meals, like rice bowls. I would say about half the time I order takeout, like pho, and the other half I cook, which is progress for me.

If my work doesn't require intense focus, I'll do it from the couch and put a happy TV show on, which right now is "Schitt's Creek." I think it's a nice balance between relaxation and getting things done.

I usually get in bed around 10:30 p.m.

I've been trying to make a habit of reading every night instead of going on my phone, which has been a really positive change. I like anything I read to be a distraction. I'm currently reading "Big Little Lies" and enjoying it.

It's nice to spend 30 minutes reading something like fantasy that's completely different from what I think about at work. That way, I'm not spinning on all the things I need to do or coming up with new ideas that can't get done in my sleep anyway.

Weekends are for the beach and farmers market

My boyfriend works in Los Angeles and flies up to San Francisco every weekend. We've made a tradition of going to the Fort Mason Farmers Market on Sundays for fresh produce to cook an at-home meal that night.

I also enjoy seeing friends over the weekend. My preference is to go on a long walk or go to the beach. I also enjoy fitting in some work — emails, deep-focus work, or reading — throughout the weekend.

When Rishub Jain worked on safety at Google DeepMind, he held one of the most coveted jobs in tech. He was among a small group of researchers working to mitigate the most consequential risks of AI.

But he left to cofound a nonprofit, Sampura Research. Jain traded the prestige and access that come with a Google job because he feels he can have a sharper, more profound impact on AI safety from the outside. Jain says he wants the autonomy to pursue research on a specific issue in AI alignment, which he felt had been deprioritized.

"All the top AI companies do care a lot about safety, and they invest in it, but they could be investing a lot more, and that's kind of what was inhibiting me," Jain says. "If they invested more in safety, I would still be at the lab and working on what I'm interested in with a large team." Google did not respond to a request for comment about whether it maintains a focus on this specific area of research, but DeepMind's principles state that it maintains "a holistic approach to responsibility, safety and security."

Jain's founder story echoes concerns raised by safety researchers who have quit OpenAI and Anthropic, including dire warnings that these companies are "gambling with our lives," and could develop technology that ends humanity. Once dismissed as fringe and doomsday-obsessed, the AI safety profession is growing as hacks by rogue agents and a string of departures have vaulted the issue into mainstream concern.

Open roles in AI safety jumped by 91% on LinkedIn over the past year. The industry expects a flood of cash from much-anticipated IPOs at Anthropic and, potentially, OpenAI, as those made absurdly wealthy by the equity returns may funnel money into potential clean-up crews for the messes created by the technology's rapid development.

The AI safety problem is existentially big, but the people who have spent time honing AI expertise are few. These are people who test and train AI systems to operate ethically. Some focus on technical research, others on policy and governance. And they're increasingly sounding alarms.

"The people who are most worried about AI are often the people who have been closest to the technology," Laura González Salmerón, advising manager at 80,000 Hours, a nonprofit focused on transitioning people into careers with high social impact. The scarcity issue is less about funds and more about people. "Talent is the main bottleneck."

Startups and nonprofits in AI safety must fight for talent in a shallow pool.

Jain's Sampura lists a salary range of $273,000 to $395,000 for an experienced team leader, which would put that worker in the top 3% of earners in the US, but likely pales in comparison to offers from larger companies. Meta reportedly offered $100 million in signing bonuses last year to poach the world's top experts. OpenAI gives employees an average of $1.5 million in stock-based compensation, and technical staff at Anthropic can earn more than $1 million annually.

Money aside, researchers are divided over whether they're more effective when working inside tech companies to mitigate risks as the latest models develop, or stepping back and attempting to steer the ship toward safer outcomes from the outside, like Jain did.

"I'm a little bit concerned about the pace of AI, and if we're able to actually come up with something useful before the rug gets pulled beneath us," Jain says. He's worried that AI's advancement will outpace the work to keep it in line with human values. "That's kind of what's been happening already."

David Robinson, who led transparency work for OpenAI's safety team, wrote an essay for The Atlantic explaining his departure. He said that AI companies should have more layers of checks and safety measures, akin to those in airports and nuclear energy, rather than the steamrolling culture of Big Tech.

"Perhaps I should have stayed and fought for fundamental shifts in our staffing and culture, but in practice, my colleagues and I were so busy sprinting that we seldom had the chance to consider big changes, much less to actually make them," he wrote. Robinson has said he plans to work on these issues from outside of the company.

As the issue grows in prominence, so has a niche of organizations helping train and recruit workers — and the opportunities aren't just for AI experts. Neav Topaz, co-director of Kairos, a nonprofit that upskills people to work in AI safety and recently raised $50 million from Coefficient Giving, says he speaks with about 10 to 20 people each month who want to move to AI safety, and interest is growing. He tells me that people are asking him more frequently about what the work entails.

"People are watching AI get good at their own jobs and starting to ask themselves what comes next," he says. The emerging jobs in AI safety "pay well, the field is growing fast, and you get to work on what might be the defining problem of our time."

Kairos this summer launched its Generator Residency, a cohort of 27 people who spent three months training for career transitions into AI safety. It's less about the research and technical work and more about merging other expertise, like in consulting, with AI safety principles.

He says that of the 27 residents, a dozen have already landed roles in the AI safety space, and many of the rest have offers to do so.

"Most of the people who will do this work are doing something else today," Topaz says. "The biggest talent gap in the field isn't researchers. It's people who grasp how high the stakes are and can translate their varied expertise into things that could make a difference in this space."

The major AI companies maintain that safety is a top priority. Last month, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei wrote an essay calling for a slowdown in AI development, and Sam Altman and Elon Musk have agreed with him. Amodei and Altman have both said recently that they will bring third-party evaluators into their companies to bolster safety protocols.

These companies have their own safety teams, but safety work competes with business priorities to build the most advanced models and win in the market. The tension, along with safety issues like OpenAI's rogue agents hacking Hugging Face, has led to more scrutiny of internal safety work. Within days of Robinson's departure, OpenAI fired three researchers, claiming they shared sensitive internal data improperly with third-party AI safety researchers. The ousted researchers wrote a letter, reported by The Wall Street Journal, to OpenAI's board, arguing that their engagement with safety researchers fell within the scope of their roles, and that their terminations were "chilling those who remain at OpenAI." OpenAI said that the decisions "were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out," and that the company would not fire people for doing so.

While some have obsessed over AI risks for years, 2026's breakthrough moment has accelerated funding for and interest in the industry. 80,000 Hours has had calls with some 8,000 people since its founding in 2011, the majority of which have focused on AI in some way, González Salmerón says. Philanthropic groups like Coefficient Giving offer massive grants to startups in the AI safety space. METR, a nonprofit AI safety group that investigated the OpenAI agentic hack on Hugging Face, says it raised $71 million in six months this year.

Much of the funding flowing into AI safety filters through effective altruism, the Silicon Valley-tied philanthropic ideal focused on using evidence and logic to donate money where it will achieve the most good. Critics say the philosophy can place too much emphasis on avoiding future problems rather than addressing imminent needs. With more alarms sounding around the existential threat of AI, more people view those theoretical, distant fears as urgent causes.

AI safety groups and individual donors have spent nearly $50 million in this year's election on candidates focused on regulating AI, Axios reported. Jaan Tallinn, a billionaire who invested early in Anthropic and could soon have even more billions as a result, has donated $170 million to nonprofits focused on AI safety. Tallinn's view, as he recently told The Wall Street Journal, is that he can have the biggest impact on the future of AI and its risks by investing in AI companies, and then donating returns to nonprofits working in the AI safety space.

Coefficient Giving, the philanthropic venture from Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz rooted in the effective altruism movement, announced its AI-safety-focused arm, Project Tailwind, in September. It says it's on track to give more than $1 billion this year to help companies of all sizes scale up in preparation for what it believes will be a deluge of philanthropic capital. Sampura Research has received an $11 million grant from the group. If startups don't begin hiring now, the logic goes, they won't move quickly enough when massive wealth hits the industry.

The dizzying development of AI has created safety risks, and there are "gaps in the ecosystem that aren't being filled and that aren't being owned by people," says Rossa O'Keeffe-O'Donovan, the program director in technical AI safety at Coefficient Giving. There are few people, he says, who sit at the intersection of technical expertise, risk analysis, a solutions-oriented vision, and the capacity to hustle as a startup founder.

New roles will emerge not just for technical talent, but also for consultants, policy wonks, communications experts, and founders who can run a business alongside technical experts. Working from the outside, they'll face hurdles in buying compute power, a lack of direct access to the latest AI models, reduced leverage, and smaller paydays.

The world feels unmoored, and the future perhaps more malleable than ever. The appeal of doing work that does good could stave off feelings of uncertainty, dread, and anxiety that people increasingly feel toward AI. In one doomer camp, AI will obliterate white-collar jobs. The optimistic view is that AI drastically reshapes work and spurs the creation of jobs we haven't yet thought of. AI safety is one of the first.

"There are lots of people beyond AI researchers who can help, like cybersecurity experts, like biosecurity experts, like economists," says Mantas Mazeika, a researcher with the Center for AI Safety, a nonprofit focused on AI research and advocacy. "They're making very significant contributions that the pure AI researchers, who were most of the people focusing on the problem beforehand, would be completely unable to do on their own."

• Rand Wacker, a Box product executive, wants his potential hires to go beyond being just AI-literate.
• Wacker likes when candidates show him their side projects, especially if they've monetized them.
• He's dipped his toes into building, too, with an Apple TV app that evokes the feel of old-school TV.

Knowing how to use AI is only enough to get a foot in the door for interviews, according to a Box executive.

Rand Wacker, Box's vice president of product strategy, said that for candidates applying for a job at Box, AI literacy is a bare-minimum requirement. Having a fully developed side hustle or project — something he practices himself — is what gives potential hires a leg up in interviews.

Case studies, which he said used to be a staple in Box interviews, are now a relic of the past. Now, he expects candidates to be prototyping out their ideas.

What he really likes to see is candidates showing him a product they've built themselves using AI, even if it has nothing to do with Box's business. He said he's had potential hires show him mobile apps that they've built, gotten onto the App Store, and are monetizing to some degree.

"They're running this little side hustle overall," he said. "And it shows the passion."

He said that people who explore and experiment with AI are the ones who win in the AI world, as they figure out how to use it most effectively in their personal and professional lives.

He practices what he preaches

Wacker, who's spent almost 30 years in the software engineering and product management fields, said he started out as a "computer nerd" and loved playing around with software tools and building things.

As he progressed in his career, he said he had less time to experiment with building, but AI has recently allowed him to test small ideas he didn't have time to explore before vibe coding existed.

He recently made an app to bring back old-school TV because he missed the days when he'd turn it on, pick one of three cable channels, and it would play a random movie from a random point.

"These days, whenever I'm trying to find something to watch on the weekends, it's decision fatigue. Which of the six streaming services do I go to? What are the 20 million titles I scroll through?" he said.

Using Cursor, he built an Apple TV app that would access his entire movie library, pick a random movie, and play it from a random point.

Working on these kinds of projects is a great way to learn the tools available on the market, get ideas for how to use them in other areas, and scratch the itch to create something of his own.

Wacker is one of many executives who have dipped their toes back into building and writing code in recent years. Leaders who haven't written lines of code in decades have started experimenting with AI coding to stay closer to their products and feel like individual contributors.